Framework Hypothesis

[Drew]

For a couple of examples, there is no rhyme, or metre in the Genesis 1 account.

That is hardly an argument against a non-literal reading. A complex allegory, like the book "Animal Farm" has no rhyme or meter, yet it clearly is an allegory.

In regards to the snake talking, do you not remember how the donkey spoke to Balaam when there was an angel standing in their way with a sword ready to strike him down if he tried to pass. Was that allegory?

I would not be surprised if Balaam's donkey was indeed an allegorical account.

I think it is fair to say that neither "side" has made any kind of a substantial argument yet (i.e. I have no more supported my position than you have supported yours).

 

[farouk]

For example, if an artist wants to depict a scene when the sun is shining, whereas on the day of his or her painting, it was actually raining, I don't see this as problematic.

Or if a tattooist adjusts a pattern to fit an area of skin.

Or if a poet makes some ideas in Scripture rhyme; this is not wrong, either.

What would be wrong is to try to claim the adjustment as original. Fact is, the relationship between eternity and infinity and Creation is hard to get one's mind around in any case, but any idea that any somewhat arbitrary pattern in the commentator's mind is somehow representative of what Genesis 1.1 actually says, would be wrong as well.

 

[Knotical]

What the Framework Hypothesis and the metaphorical take on the talking donkey calls into question, among other things, is the supernatural nature of God. Are we saying He is not able to create the universe, including our tiny little planet, within a span of six days of ordinary length, or cause a donkey to talk if He so choose? This also calls into question the inerrancy of the Bible, that God could not hold the integrity of His message together throughout time to be conveyed through the ages.

Ultimately, it is sinful man that confuses and distorts His message, which is why we must look to the bible as His incorruptible Word. Sure, we may have difficulty understanding some things within it, but that just means the Holy Spirit has not enlightened us to understand these things.

Have you read a passage of scripture over and over again, and suddenly it is like a light bulb went on? That is the Holy Spirit removing the veil from your eyes.

 

[BornAgain]

What the Framework Hypothesis and the metaphorical take on the talking donkey calls into question, among other things, is the supernatural nature of God. Are we saying He is not able to create the universe, including our tiny little planet, within a span of six days of ordinary length, or cause a donkey to talk if He so choose? This also calls into question the inerrancy of the Bible, that God could not hold the integrity of His message together throughout time to be conveyed through the ages.

Ultimately, it is sinful man that confuses and distorts His message, which is why we must look to the bible as His incorruptible Word. Sure, we may have difficulty understanding some things within it, but that just means the Holy Spirit has not enlightened us to understand these things.

Have you read a passage of scripture over and over again, and suddenly it is like a light bulb went on? That is the Holy Spirit removing the veil from your eyes.

Yes, yes and yes... (Christianity) exemption from error; "biblical inerrancy" That was a great example and I got the message quick. Great thread and I hope that everybody else got it, too! :yes

 

[farouk]

You see, I guess it's all to do with the nature of commentary.

In artistic terms, representational art can come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, but where representation is completely lost but supposedly claimed, then this is kind of problematic.

Of if a poet re-writes something so extensively and yet claims the work to belong to the original author, this is dishonest also.

Of if a person getting a tattoo has approved a cool pattern but the tattooist then goes and alters it so extensively that what was 'approved' is almost lost in the tattoo, then this is wrong, too.

Or if a commentary claims to be doing exegesis - getting out the meaning of the text - but actually what is being done is isegesis - putting meaning into the text - then this is undoubtedly wrong also.

Sometimes it can take quite a lot of wisdom to figure exactly what is going on, though. What might seem to be happening, might not be accurate when one probes a little more.

 

[Drew]

What the Framework Hypothesis and the metaphorical take on the talking donkey calls into question, among other things, is the supernatural nature of God. Are we saying He is not able to create the universe, including our tiny little planet, within a span of six days of ordinary length, or cause a donkey to talk if He so choose?

This is not a valid argument. Of course God is capable of creating the universe in 6 days. But that is simply not an argument that this is what He actually did.

This also calls into question the inerrancy of the Bible, that God could not hold the integrity of His message together throughout time to be conveyed through the ages.

This, also, is not valid. You have already agreed that some passages of the Bible are not to be taken literally. You need to make an actual case that the Genesis 1 account is not one of these passages. We all agree the Bible is inerrant. How do you know that Genesis 1 is literal, given the undeniable fact that some Scripture passages are not to be taken literally?

Ultimately, it is sinful man that confuses and distorts His message, which is why we must look to the bible as His incorruptible Word. Sure, we may have difficulty understanding some things within it, but that just means the Holy Spirit has not enlightened us to understand these things.

This basically begs the question; We all agree with this, but it does not speak to the matter at issue: Is Genesis 1 literal or not?

Have you read a passage of scripture over and over again, and suddenly it is like a light bulb went on? That is the Holy Spirit removing the veil from your eyes.

Again, not a valid argument. Lots of people will claim that the Holy Spirit has enlightened them with truth. And many of them are clearly mistaken.

 

[Knotical]

Let's take a different tack on this. Take a look at the approaches at writing that the individuals had who physically put pen to paper who wrote the bible. Was Moses known as a poet? Are all of the chapters he wrote supposed to be taken as poetic or allegorical? I don't think so.

Put this consideration to the test for the other authors of the books of the bible and see where you end up.

 

[Drew]

Was Moses known as a poet? Are all of the chapters he wrote supposed to be taken as poetic or allegorical? I don't think so.

Again, this is not really a case. One need not be known "as a poet" to write something using literary devices. I am not a poet, I am an engineer. Yet even I could come with an allegorical treatment of some subject, if I were motivated to do so.

Put this consideration to the test for the other authors of the books of the bible and see where you end up.

What is the point of this statement?

 

[Knotical]

Again, this is not really a case. One need not be known "as a poet" to write something using literary devices. I am not a poet, I am an engineer. Yet even I could come with an allegorical treatment of some subject, if I were motivated to do so.

Then take a look at the books Moses wrote and consider whether all or none of it could be considered poetic or allegory.

What is the point of this statement?

I should think it was quite obvious, in light of the previous statement.

 

[BornAgain]

Let's take a different tack on this. Take a look at the approaches at writing that the individuals had who physically put pen to paper who wrote the bible. Was Moses known as a poet? Are all of the chapters he wrote supposed to be taken as poetic or allegorical? I don't think so.

Put this consideration to the test for the other authors of the books of the bible and see where you end up.

Exodus 34:28


God certainly wrote the ten words on both sets of tables. Moses either wrote a transcript of these and the accompanying precepts for the use of the people, or he wrote the precepts themselves in addition to the ten commandments which were written by the finger of God.

 

[farouk]

I think what is needed when looking at commentary, works of art, etc. is clarity about what is the commentator's, what is the artist's, what is the original.

For example, the numbers of the days of Creation are really there in Genesis. But someone's speculation as to the meaning of the days would not be original.

Or, an artist's judicious use of color to blend contrasts, etc., is legitimate, certainly. It depends what the quest for contrast is all about, of course.

Like with a tattoo, for example, bold lines may all be part of the effect desired, though sometimes using skin colored ink to blend or smooth the contrast may be quite legit, too.

I guess in Bible commentary, clarity counts for a lot, and sometimes useful summaries can helpfully simplify, but the process needs to keep a firm grip on the original, and not lose sight of it.

 

[BornAgain]

I think what is needed when looking at commentary, works of art, etc. is clarity about what is the commentator's, what is the artist's, what is the original.

For example, the numbers of the days of Creation are really there in Genesis. But someone's speculation as to the meaning of the days would not be original.

Or, an artist's judicious use of color to blend contrasts, etc., is legitimate, certainly. It depends what the quest for contrast is all about, of course.

Like with a tattoo, for example, bold lines may all be part of the effect desired, though sometimes using skin colored ink to blend or smooth the contrast may be quite legit, too.

I guess in Bible commentary, clarity counts for a lot, and sometimes useful summaries can helpfully simplify, but the process needs to keep a firm grip on the original, and not lose sight of it.

Farouk,

That was explained several posts ago..the OP wants to change his authors to the bible and see where we end up...

 

[farouk]

Farouk,

That was explained several posts ago..the OP wants to change his authors to the thread...

Sorry, how did you mean, Christine?

(I might be 'getting it', mostly, though I'm not sure I'm completely following everything.)

PS: Oh I think I see what you are saying: making out that the Bible is saying something whereas it's really the commentator's ideas.

 

[Drew]

Then take a look at the books Moses wrote and consider whether all or none of it could be considered poetic or allegory.

This is not a case that Genesis 1 is literal, it is a challenge to me establish precedent for Moses using literary devices. And that is a fair challenge to make to me. But this does not support your position, it merely asks me to support mine.

I should think it was quite obvious, in light of the previous statement.

Well, it was not obvious to me.

Again: we are not really getting anywhere yet. Neither of us has made any solid arguments for our respective positions. Yet, anyway.

 

[BornAgain]

This is not a case that Genesis 1 is literal, it is a challenge to me establish precedent for Moses using literary devices. And that is a fair challenge to make to me. But this does not support your position, it merely asks me to support mine.



Well, it was not obvious to me.

Again: we are not really getting anywhere yet. Neither of us has made any solid arguments for our respective positions. Yet, anyway.

Please look at my post #20....we have gone full circle.

 

[Knotical]

The approach I am proposing, in order to discredit the Framework Hypothesis, is to look at the writing styles of the men who contributed to the Bible. Specifically the question is whether or not they used different kinds of styles (i.e., literal, allegory, poetic, etc...). My contention, as is many others, is that Moses wrote literally, therefore, the creation account must be taken literally.

Does anyone have evidence that Moses wrote in any other style than literal?

 

[BornAgain]

The approach I am proposing, in order to discredit the Framework Hypothesis, is to look at the writing styles of the men who contributed to the Bible. Specifically the question is whether or not they used different kinds of styles (i.e., literal, allegory, poetic, etc...). My contention, as is many others, is that Moses wrote literally, therefore, the creation account must be taken literally.

Does anyone have evidence that Moses wrote in any other style than literal?

Exodus 34:28

 

[BornAgain]

The approach I am proposing, in order to discredit the Framework Hypothesis, is to look at the writing styles of the men who contributed to the Bible. Specifically the question is whether or not they used different kinds of styles (i.e., literal, allegory, poetic, etc...). My contention, as is many others, is that Moses wrote literally, therefore, the creation account must be taken literally.

Does anyone have evidence that Moses wrote in any other style than literal?

Deut 4:13 Deut 10:4

 

[Knotical]

Exodus 34:28

How is that anything but literal. It is obviously written in the third person, but how is it not literal?

 

[farouk]

K: Isn't it not so much whether Moses is supposed to have written literally as whether if it's God's Word, the literal meaning is to be preferred?